OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of tube potential on radiation dose and image quality of third-generation dual-source coronary CT angiography (CTA) in a phantom simulating an obese patient. METHODS: A thoracic phantom was equipped with tubular inserts containing iodine solution and water. A soft-tissue-equivalent ring around the phantom simulated an obese patient. Images were acquired at tube potentials of 80, 100, 120 and 140 kV with second-generation dual-source CT (DSCT) and 70-150 kV (in 10-kV increments) with third-generation DSCT. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was calculated and CT dose index was recorded. RESULTS: With second-generation DSCT, CNR was highest for 120 kV (19.0) and decreased with lower tube potential (12.0 at 80 kV) owing to disproportionately increased image noise. With third-generation DSCT, 70- and 80-kV acquisitions showed a smaller increase in noise. CNRs for third-generation DSCT were highest for 70 and 80 kV (21.1 and 21.2, respectively). Compared to 120 kV, radiation dose was 68% and 49% lower at 70 kV and 80 kV, respectively. CONCLUSION: Third-generation DSCT enables one to perform coronary CTA at 70-80 kV in obese patients without compromising CNR and thus reduces radiation dose by 49-68%. KEY POINTS: • Low tube potential CT angiography is currently not suitable for obese patients. • Third-generation DSCT offers substantially increased tube power at low tube potential. • This enables one to perform coronary CT angiography at 70-80 kV in obese patients. • Signal-to-noise ratio is maintained owing to increased tube current. • This approach can be expected to reduce radiation dose by 49-68%.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of tube potential on radiation dose and image quality of third-generation dual-source coronary CT angiography (CTA) in a phantom simulating an obesepatient. METHODS: A thoracic phantom was equipped with tubular inserts containing iodine solution and water. A soft-tissue-equivalent ring around the phantom simulated an obesepatient. Images were acquired at tube potentials of 80, 100, 120 and 140 kV with second-generation dual-source CT (DSCT) and 70-150 kV (in 10-kV increments) with third-generation DSCT. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was calculated and CT dose index was recorded. RESULTS: With second-generation DSCT, CNR was highest for 120 kV (19.0) and decreased with lower tube potential (12.0 at 80 kV) owing to disproportionately increased image noise. With third-generation DSCT, 70- and 80-kV acquisitions showed a smaller increase in noise. CNRs for third-generation DSCT were highest for 70 and 80 kV (21.1 and 21.2, respectively). Compared to 120 kV, radiation dose was 68% and 49% lower at 70 kV and 80 kV, respectively. CONCLUSION: Third-generation DSCT enables one to perform coronary CTA at 70-80 kV in obesepatients without compromising CNR and thus reduces radiation dose by 49-68%. KEY POINTS: • Low tube potential CT angiography is currently not suitable for obesepatients. • Third-generation DSCT offers substantially increased tube power at low tube potential. • This enables one to perform coronary CT angiography at 70-80 kV in obesepatients. • Signal-to-noise ratio is maintained owing to increased tube current. • This approach can be expected to reduce radiation dose by 49-68%.
Authors: Ashley M Lee; Leif-Christopher Engel; Gladwin C Hui; Gary Liew; Maros Ferencik; Manavjot S Sidhu; Udo Hoffmann; Brian B Ghoshhajra Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Anna Winklehner; Robert Goetti; Stephan Baumueller; Christoph Karlo; Bernhard Schmidt; Rainer Raupach; Thomas Flohr; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Matthias Renker; John W Nance; U Joseph Schoepf; Terrence X O'Brien; Peter L Zwerner; Mathias Meyer; J Matthias Kerl; Ralf W Bauer; Christian Fink; Thomas J Vogl; Thomas Henzler Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wei-Hua Yin; Bin Lu; Nan Li; Lei Han; Zhi-Hui Hou; Run-Ze Wu; Yong-Jian Wu; Hong-Xia Niu; Shi-Liang Jiang; Aleksander W Krazinski; Ullrich Ebersberger; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-10-23
Authors: Babs M F Hendriks; Madeleine Kok; Casper Mihl; Sebastiaan C A M Bekkers; Joachim E Wildberger; Marco Das Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Stefanie Mangold; Julian L Wichmann; U Joseph Schoepf; Zachary B Poole; Christian Canstein; Akos Varga-Szemes; Damiano Caruso; Fabian Bamberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Moritz H Albrecht; John W Nance; U Joseph Schoepf; Brian E Jacobs; Richard R Bayer; Sheldon E Litwin; Michael A Reynolds; Katharina Otani; Stefanie Mangold; Akos Varga-Szemes; Domenico De Santis; Marwen Eid; Georg Apfaltrer; Christian Tesche; Markus Goeller; Thomas J Vogl; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nandini M Meyersohn; Balint Szilveszter; Pedro V Staziaki; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Richard A P Takx; Udo Hoffmann; Brian B Ghoshhajra Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2017-03-22
Authors: J L Wichmann; J Kraft; E-M Nöske; B Bodelle; I Burck; J-E Scholtz; C Frellesen; J Wagenblast; J M Kerl; R W Bauer; T Lehnert; T J Vogl; B Schulz Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Franziska M Braun; Veronica Holzner; Felix G Meinel; Marco Armbruster; Martina Brandlhuber; Birgit Ertl-Wagner; Wieland H Sommer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Long Jiang Zhang; Yining Wang; U Joseph Schoepf; Felix G Meinel; Richard R Bayer; Li Qi; Jian Cao; Chang Sheng Zhou; Yan E Zhao; Xie Li; Jian Bin Gong; Zhengyu Jin; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 5.315